Firearms Talk banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,147 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Evidently they are contemplating going against troops with body armor the 5.56 wont penetrate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigcat

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,626 Posts
Well they have an array of ammunition currently anyway. Some snipers are using the .338 Lapua, and the good 'ol .308 Winchester is still active.
I think it's a great idea to add another round, or even a couple more, to their repertoire. Power to the Troops

Ever been involved in logistics??:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,743 Posts
Ever been involved in logistics??:p
Have been most of my Army career, in one form or another. The real eye-opener was as a Support Platoon Leader for a light Infantry Battalion. One of the many things the Support Platoon Leader does is ammo for the battalion. This was in the late '70s.

Ammo I had to account for, pick up, distribute, turn in, store, etc. for "just" a basic light Infantry Battalion was:
.45 ACP (this was before the 9mm)
5.56 Ball/Tracer mixed
5.56 Ball (M193)
7.62 Ball/tracer mixed
7.62 Ball
7.62 Tracer
.50 cal Ball/tracer mixed
.50 cal Ball
.50 cal Tracer
40mm Grenade (for M-203) (various types)
90mm Recoilless Rifle HEAT
90mm Recoilless Rifle Flechette
81mm Mortar HE
81mm Mortar White Phosphorous
81mm Mortar Parachute Flare
4.2" Mortar HE
4.2" Mortar White Phosphorous
4.2" Mortar Parachute Flare
Various grenades (frag, smoke of many colors)
Dragon Anti-Tank Missile
TOW Anti-Tank Missile

We (the 9th ID) were allowed to keep our 90mm Recoilless Rifles (for a while) even after fielding the Dragon. But they took away our 106mm Recoilless Rifles when the TOW was fielded.

This for a Light Infantry Battalion of just 840 soldiers (on a good day!). It was a PITA, and things likely haven't gotten much better - particularly for a Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Challenges are increased exponentially higher up the logistics food chain.

Replacing the 5.56 for a 6.8 may be superior in terms of performance - and I'm all for that - but replacing 5.56 weapons to fire the 6.8 will take many years. Until then, it will be a friggin' nightmare at all levels figuring out stockage levels and distribution to those units equipped with either 5.56 or 6.8. During Desert Storm, for example, deploying units had a mix of M1911s and M9s, with many of the RC units armed with M1911s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,871 Posts
Its interesting what the gulf war vets have yo say in their published accounts of their actions over there.

Enough flags pop up that even me as a tax paying citizen would think, Hey! the DOD should take action on this troublesome issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
I like the 6.8, swap out the upper and mags and good to go.

A bit off topic, but I am curious. How often do our deployed troops depend on NATA ammo from other countries to supply our troops with ammo?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,743 Posts
Fred, can't address how it is now, but we had Portuguese 9mm mixed in with U.S. ammo during ODS. Sure makes multinational logistics easier - particularly for NATO - to have common ammo. A specialty unit temporarily detached to support a NATO ally (picture logistics units, Military Police, Medical, and Combat/Combat-Support units) can often depend on the host unit for basic log support (including ammo).

IIRC, when we switched to 5.56 way back when, there was a lot of political and logistal pain in NATO as it wasn't a NATO-standard round at the time.

We prefer to support ourselves, but having common ammo (for one) does provide a degree of flexibility.

When I was a Support Platoon Leader is 2/1 Infantry back in the late '70s, some of our 81mm Mortar ammo was Canadian, and they would draw from our Ammo Supply Point for some of their training ammo when visiting Fort Lewis. I still have some of those ammo cans (theirs were in metal boxes, the U.S. was in wooden boxes). They made for great storage boxes for our M151 Jeeps.

The challenge is bigger than ammo (consider radio batteries, for example), but for the purposes of this thread, am sticking with carbine ammo. There is a valid reason for a NATO standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Thanks for the info RJF22553.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,743 Posts
Thanks for the info RJF22553.
Move beyond small arms ammo and get into missiles and artillery, and the bennies are even greater.

Not to say upgrading the 5.56 to 6.8 isn't a bad thing, just pointing out there is a certain amount of pain doing do, which should be factored into whatever grand equation there is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Well, you have a great point, the best gun in the world is an unwieldy bat without ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJF22553

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Move beyond small arms ammo and get into missiles and artillery, and the bennies are even greater.

Not to say upgrading the 5.56 to 6.8 isn't a bad thing, just pointing out there is a certain amount of pain doing do, which should be factored into whatever grand equation there is.
I apologize in advance for hijacking thread but how much of an issue would it be to adopt the 6.8 SPC as a light/medium machine gun round? I have a very good friend who has eight deployments as a member 75th Rng Regiment. From talking to him it seems like th 5.56 is fine for individual weapons but a LMG round that bridges the gap between 5.56 and 7.62 would be a Godsend.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,626 Posts
I apologize in advance for hijacking thread but how much of an issue would it be to adopt the 6.8 SPC as a light/medium machine gun round? I have a very good friend who has eight deployments as a member 75th Rng Regiment. From talking to him it seems like th 5.56 is fine for individual weapons but a LMG round that bridges the gap between 5.56 and 7.62 would be a Godsend.
And a logistics nightmare.

The Great Pumpkin Roller, Goofie Jeffie Cooper is gone folks. Let him rest.
 

·
Supporting Member
Joined
·
11,813 Posts
I think that would certainly be a good thing. If they can work out the logistics. I know a few Special Forces Units were or are still using the 6.8 SPC on a limited basis.
The 6.5 Grendel would have been a good round also due to bullet coefficient.
They can go up to 1000 yards easily. And are the design of a 7.62X39 Case sized to 6.5. Also they would run in the area of 95-120 gr. Bullets vs 55 - 72.

03
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,743 Posts
Just read an article about the Army wanting to get to a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) being able to sustain itself for a week of combat operations before needing resupply. As a retired Army loggie, I've seen this desire/"initiative" before. A few times. Never worked out once the Army got the price tag in terms of manpower, equipment, deployability, mobility, etc. It is always a wonderful idea until one gets down to the basics. Were it just sitting there in a static defense, maybe. But that is not the operational concept. Back in the '80s, it was the "Air/Land Battle Study" (derisively referred to as "AL(L)BS") by some in which a Corps (a number of Divisions - each with three-four brigades "punching through the front lines and operating independently for a week or so deep into enemy lines - creating havoc in the rear areas", then when the Army went to (or tried) to go Brigade-Centric - but don't call them Brigades or Divisions or Corps - call them "Units of Action (UA)", "Units of Employment (UEx and UEy)", and other nonsense. The whole idea was to get away from the standard mind-think of Brigades and Divisions and Corps by calling them something different. Fortunately, that concept went down in flames but we are in the Brigade Combat Team mode now - not much different, actually, than what a Regimental Combat Team was in WW-II. The Circle of Life...old enough to be considered "new".

The more variety you have in terms of parts, batteries, ammo, fuel, etc., the bigger challenge it is to try and anticipate - for a weeks' worth of combat - how much of each item one needs, with a healthy overage for the unexpected, since it is generally considered bad form to run out of ammo (or fuel) in the middle of a firefight...The Army "models" anticipated consumption of things like fuel and ammo and tires and track-pads for various combat operations, but just like Climate-Change modeling, it has challenges. Would you want to go into combat based on some model's computations that you'll only shoot 200 rounds per day from your M4, so a BCT will only have at hand 1,400 rounds per M4 before going into combat...How about other ammo? Fuzes for mortars and artillery, differing types of tank ammo, etc.

It was a PITA to transition to a common fuel.

Again, not to knock the 6.8, but everybody doesn't get to the same level of "modernization" overnight, and that means different parts and ammo during the "transition". As recently as 1995, there were still Reserve Component (National Guard and Army Reserve) that still had M1911s. Granted, they were at the bottom of the food chain, but it took well over a decade to transition fully to the M9. Switching to 6.8 will take well over a decade, and it will be painful for loggies. Might be a good thing - as long as we don't have a war in the mean time...

To be sure, the Army is trying to do modernization of entire Brigade Combat Teams at a time. It isn't easy, as one can imagine, and upgrading to 6.8 will be just one of many "upgrades" during a transition time. That means a BCT not available until the transition is complete, training is certified, and various stockage level of parts updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
And a logistics nightmare.

The Great Pumpkin Roller, Goofie Jeffie Cooper is gone folks. Let him rest.
Not sure what brought up Jeff Cooper. The reason for my comment is that in my friend's experience the 5.56 lacks the energy to punch through the clay walls common/barriers in Afghanistain when trying to lay down suppressive fire at mid to long range. His unit was selected to test a few SAW type 6.8 prototypes and he was very impressed with the improved performance. From what I gather they evetually went with the SCAR-H to bridge the gap between the MK46 and Mk48.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,743 Posts
harker, that is likely the case. The 5.56 is great against un-armored BGs, but going through clay walls common barriers - not so much. Lots of that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The issue - from the Big-A (whole-Army perspective) is where do you draw the line?

Agree the Army needs to adapt, but adaptation also means changed Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP).

When one finds the 5.56 doesn't penetrate a clay wall, there are several options - one of which is a larger caliber that can. Others in include employing a heavier machine gun, Anti Tank weapons, grenades, etc. to pulverize that wall. It we try and give every infantryman the capability to rubbleize a clay wall, the every one of them will be armed with a .50 cal or AT weapon. It is unreasonable from a logistics and reality perspective.

If you come up to a clay wall that a 5.56 can't rubblize, then you bring in something that can. We've done that for generations. There is only so much weight we can ask an infantryman to carry, and that includes weapon and ammo.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top